Retrieve community details by JID, including name, description, settings, and announcement group. Read-only access returns the community object.
Get the details of a community by its JID: name, description, settings and announcement group. Read-only. Returns the community object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Community JID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' sentence largely restates structured data. The description does add value by naming the fields the community object carries, but it says nothing about failure behavior for invalid JIDs or the openWorldHint implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and identifier, no filler. Every sentence carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly complete — the description even previews the return fields. Only marginal gaps remain (no guidance on invalid/stale JID behavior or routing versus sibling lookup tools).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'Community JID'. The description's 'by its JID' adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get), resource (community), and the identifying key (JID), and enumerates what the returned object contains (name, description, settings, announcement group). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like whatsapp_list_communities and whatsapp_get_community_participants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'by its JID' — the caller must already know the community identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus whatsapp_list_communities or whatsapp_get_community_sub_groups, nor any prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.